Mesopotamia - The Cradle of Western Civilization

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

With the announcement by Iran that it is now a "Nuclear Power", one wonders whether the cradle is precariously balanced in a tree of monumental nationalism. I really am reminded of the nursery rhyme "Rock-a-bye Baby". Will some 5,000 years of civilization stemming from the Tigris and Euphrates end in a nuclear holocaust at the east end of the Med? The whole Arab/Israeli conflict is really a family squabble from the time of Abraham. Can the world stand by now or is it time for internatonal family services to step in and spank the babies?

[fukuda 351]

Will some 5,000 years of civilization stemming from the Tigris and Euphrates [...] The whole Arab/Israeli conflict is really a family squabble from the time of Abraham.quote>

Mesopotamia is in Irak, not in Iran .. Persans just invaded mesopotamia afterwards, they aren't even semites or arabs to begin with

[Easy Bakes 253]

that area could become a nuclear waste land and still people would fight over it.

[erbush 8]

So let them fight over it.. we should just stay out of the way.. so what if it becomes a nuclear wasteland.. it's already mostly wasteland.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Historically Iraq plus Iran make up most of ancient Persia. History being what it is and people being what they are, I expect some burning bushes in that area sometime in this or the next decade.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Will some 5,000 years of civilization stemming from the Tigris and Euphrates [...] The whole Arab/Israeli conflict is really a family squabble from the time of Abraham.quote>

Mesopotamia is in Irak, not in Iran .. Persans just invaded mesopotamia afterwards, they aren't even semites or arabs to begin with

quote>

Where did the Perisans / Farsi begin anyway?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: Fresh Prince of Wmbg

Originally posted by: fukuda

Will some 5,000 years of civilization stemming from the Tigris and Euphrates [...] The whole Arab/Israeli conflict is really a family squabble from the time of Abraham.quote>

Mesopotamia is in Irak, not in Iran .. Persans just invaded mesopotamia afterwards, they aren't even semites or arabs to begin with

quote>

Where did the Perisans / Farsi begin anyway?quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire" >Wiki Link And there you are. Heavy history learning curve for those interested. This article has lots of links.

[bluemoose 223]

In a nuclear war, NOBODY wins!!!!

p.s. (not N_O_Body, like noone )

[morriswalters 16]

Here's a truly scary idea.  Perhaps all the Nuclear Nations should detonate one weapon every couple of years, a mid ocean airburst, and invite spectators.  So people don't forget.  Just so people know what they buy into when they are used.  Check out a DVD called Trinity and Beyond, both beautiful and terrifying.

[Muck308 55]

I don't think anyone needs a refresher, morris. We all know annihilation is the name of the game.

[fukuda 351]

Historically Iraq plus Iran make up most of ancient Persia.quote>

Yes, but independently of their pretensions or claims, actual Iran is not the Persan empire.

Where did the Perisans / Farsi begin anyway?quote>

They came from the steppes of central asia, that's all we really know. Where did they originate? Nobody really knows without written history. Farsi is an indo-european language, it is actually more closely related to English than arab and other semitic languages.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: Muck308

I don't think anyone needs a refresher, morris. We all know annihilation is the name of the game.quote>

I am out of touch with the school systems these days. Do they still run the films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should be required watching for everyone in countries that have "nuclear capability" a.k.a. the power to destroy everything.

[Moshi 61]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: Muck308

I don't think anyone needs a refresher, morris. We all know annihilation is the name of the game.quote>

I am out of touch with the school systems these days. Do they still run the films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should be required watching for everyone in countries that have "nuclear capability" a.k.a. the power to destroy everything.quote>

What may be sadder is the fact that they don't show those films in schools here...

Then again, with Barefoot Gen often being the only manga in the school library, the showing of a film may not be high on the priorities list.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

You may well believe all that claptrap, but the facts are:

"This is the way the world ends --

"Not with a whim but a banker."

[mightygoose 92]

some relevant points on www.futuretimeline.net. a site that collates the predictions of world leading scientists futurologists and economists.

2010

Iran is on the brink of revolution

For years, the Iranian people have suffered hardship and repression at the hands of a corrupt and tyrannical regime.

In June 2009, the disputed results of the presidential election were followed by mass protests around the country. These were bigger in scale than the unrest seen during the 1979 revolution.

Tensions boiled over, with government forces taking an increasingly fierce stance. This only intensified the violence, leading to full-scale riots and the shooting dead of demonstrators in the streets. Many hundreds were arrested. Footage of the protests - taken by phones and spread via the Internet - revealed to the world just how volatile the situation was becoming.*

President Ahmadinejad and his clerics attempted to blame the West, in order to stir up patriotic feeling among Iranian citizens, but this failed to have the desired effect.

In 2010, further protests combined with an even more ruthless crackdown by the government is pushing the nation towards a second revolution.

2013

Iran carries out its first nuclear test

After years of diplomatic stall tactics, Iran confirms its place in the "nuclear club" of countries.

Technology covertly supplied by Russia has allowed it to fulfill its nuclear ambitions. Faced with such a grave potential threat, Israel's economy goes into freefall.

Although the Iranian government repeatedly states its peaceful intentions, the region as a whole now enters a period of instability the likes of which has never been seen before. This nuclear test is viewed in the West as the most significant world event since 9/11.

2019

Global oil demand exceeds 100m barrels per day

Meanwhile, new discoveries are continuing to show an alarming decline. As the decade draws to a close, it becomes painfully obvious to all that "Peak Oil" has been reached. And with 60% of all recoverable oil in the Middle East, conflict looms for much of the region.

2020-2035

World energy crisis*

Throughout this period the world is thrown into turmoil as demand for oil begins to greatly exceed supply - crippling many economies and triggering widespread social unrest.*

There are major conflicts throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. The most significant of these resource wars actually involves the one-off use of a tactical nuclear weapon.

The crisis plays out for nearly two decades, gradually being resolved by a switch to renewable energy and alternative fuel technologies - but the transition is by no means a smooth one. By the mid-2030's, the geopolitical map of the Middle East is almost unrecognisable compared with 20 years previously.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Allow me to add an alternate time line:

2013:

After Iran's successful nuclear test, the militant Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahoo, conducts a nuclear attack on Teheran and Iran's nuclear facilities. The United Nations dissolves in chaos as the Americans take over the entire middle east to secure their "National Interest". China and Russia stand by since the Americans have a non-aggression pact with them and have guaranteed oil supplies from the new American oil fields in the Persian Gulf. The fate of the Saudi royal familiy is unknown.

2020:

Global warming reaches the tipping point. Very large Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Transition storms destroy the coast lines of all continents. All coastal cities are badly damaged or obliterated.

From here, you should be able to see what happens next. (Play Global Thermonuclear War).

Star Date: 80957.1

Undersea archeologists from Primores 0 begin work in the submerged ruins of a large city on the east coast of the northwestern land mass. Speculation on what kind of people lived here is rife. Most of the fossilized life forms are four=limbed and laterally symetrical.

[Cobraroll 138]

I think neither Israel nor Iran will actually use their nuclear arms. They're not that stupid.

- If Israel was to attack Tehran or the nuclear facilities, it would immediately end all international sympathy. That is, no more accepting the treatment of Palestinians, no more American support, and of course economical boycott. Besides, the danger of a counterattack is always present. Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well, by the way, and would not take lightly on the deaths of millions innocent Muslims in Tehran. One would assume that India would react as well to Pakistani use of nuclear weapons.

- If Iran tried to bomb Israel, well, there's the end of Iranian civilization. The entire western world would outright declare war on the country, and Iran does not have the capacity to withstand an attack. Besides, both Russia and China would turn a lot more hostile towards Iran.

Simply put, any country who uses nuclear weapons would be forced out of international politics, and face internal revolt and possibly wars. However, there might be other grim ends for this conflict than huge explosions.

- Israeli intelligence (the Mossad) is one of the most effective nad advanced intelligences in the world. It would be a lot easier for Israel to simply assassinate Ahmadinejad and/or the religious leaders, and the country would have no "strong men" to suppress the already existing revolts.

- Perhaps it could all go without killings as well. History looks a lot milder on leaders who realise that their country wants them to leave office, and if Ahmadinejad and his administration just decided to resign, the conflict could end peacefully. Of course, this is the best case scenario and thus the one least likely to happen (Murphy's Law).

- Then revolution is another way. It all depends on the loyalty of the Iranian militia. If they decide to go against the theocracy, a civil war could be an outcome. And a split Iran would be a lot weaker in terms of regional conflicts.

- Attacks on the country with more conventional weapons could also be a possible outcome. However, many of the Iranian nuclear facilities lie deep within mountains, and would withstand heavy bombing. Also, a single strike would initiate a snowball effect, and it could escalate completely.

- Or, they could go the hard route. In theory, the problems in the area could continue forever, never ending in total war, but with smaller conflicts and political turmoil for centuries to come. The Middle East has been like that for thousands of years, and it may very well keep going.

[mightygoose 92]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Allow me to add an alternate time line:

2013:

After Iran's successful nuclear test, the militant Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahoo, conducts a nuclear attack on Teheran and Iran's nuclear facilities. The United Nations dissolves in chaos as the Americans take over the entire middle east to secure their "National Interest". China and Russia stand by since the Americans have a non-aggression pact with them and have guaranteed oil supplies from the new American oil fields in the Persian Gulf. The fate of the Saudi royal familiy is unknown.

2020:

Global warming reaches the tipping point. Very large Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Transition storms destroy the coast lines of all continents. All coastal cities are badly damaged or obliterated.

From here, you should be able to see what happens next. (Play Global Thermonuclear War).

Star Date: 80957.1

Undersea archeologists from Primores 0 begin work in the submerged ruins of a large city on the east coast of the northwestern land mass. Speculation on what kind of people lived here is rife. Most of the fossilized life forms are four=limbed and laterally symetrical.quote>

do you really believe that, i am saddened if you do... i thought this was going to be an adult discussion... not a hollywood one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

do you really believe that, i am saddened if you do... i thought this was going to be an adult discussion... not a hollywood one.

quote>

My time line is as good as any. I just left a little more to the imagination. Yours completely ignored the global warming problem, and if you think that when Iran gets "the bomb" they will just rattle their sabres, then you don't understand just how much hate is boiling over there.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

Irans possession of a nuclear device is problematic but more from a standpoint of proliferation.  It won't be a secret, eventually they will have to test.  And when you set off a bomb people will know, particularly if they don't trust you.  North Korea is an example of this.  The risk is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.  The chances of a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel is relatively low.  There is no upside for them and there are downsides.  No First Use is the unofficial doctrine of all Nuclear armed nations.  An airstrike like the one on Iraq would be more likely.

The idea of a US occupation of the Middle East is so unlikely as to almost be fictional.  To start with we don't have the Forces available to do it even if  we were so inclined.  Resupply would be horrendous, I can't believe the Europeans would ever allow resupply across their airspace.  And while we could pull ships from the US ready reserves we have no Merchant crews to run them and not enough Navy crews either.  An invasion of Iran would be no sure thing, they have a large well trained Army and they would be on their home ground.  And believing that Russia or China would be passive in this is probably optimistic.

In terms of Global Climate Change, remember that climate is weather over time.  Assuming the effects climatologists predict, the number and intensity of storms will increase, but that won't destroy coastal cities per se and it won't happen quickly.  The primary result will be increasing migration.  Slow at first and then intensifying as time goes on.  This migration will take place in low lying areas already well known.  Bangladesh comes to mind.

[mightygoose 92]

ok sorry if i sounded short, i did not mean to devolve, or lower the tone.

i just feel that such dramatic climate change over such a short scale is incredibly unlikely, at currents rates of sea level rise in terms of velocity and acceleration, the first climate change refugees will be in the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea, this is estimate to result in total submersion of the islands by 2015.

by 2024, bangladesh it is estimated will enter a humanitarian crisis as extreme weather and glacial melting result in massive flooding, ruining vast swathes of crops. this would probably lead to small scale conflicts along the south-east asian coast and ithe indian border. with over 150 million living in the country it would be the first major disaster directly attributed to climate change.

it is estimated that wholesale abandonment of the Maldives will occur roughly around 2026.

it is estimated that the arctic will have its first Ice free summer around 2035.

the large scale conflict over much of the world that you ascribe to around 2020, is generally predicted, but it is generally believed to commence when large scale food and water shortages begin to occur globally, this is estimated to be around 2045.

conflicts are estimated to peak around 2060 with much of the equatorial regions of the planet becoming largely uninhabital, this results in dvastation globally equivalent to ww2, furthermore the often cited mass exodus is expected to occur 2050-2065 with immigration to more extreme latitudes becoming the dominant news story for the period.

also it is around 2060 that permanent flood barriers will need to be constructed around New York.

2065 is expected to herald an further economic crisis as the insurance industry collapses under the weight of payouts caused by climate change damage.

2075 the thames barrier will need replacing with a larger successor.

by 2090 western antarctica will be suitable for human settlement.

thats the the general timeline i believe most accurate in terms of global warming.

i know this is off track but it is relevant, as you rightly say climate change will be a major proponent in the any middle eastern conflict in the future.

so with much of the middle east becoming uninhabitable within 50-60 years, it is not a direct consideration fro 1-10 year predictions in terms of political destabilisation. I believe that any issues that are currently forseeable will be exposed and resolved within the next 6-10 years. And my future posts wil be directed as such.

john

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[sneakeypete 16]

I disagree with equatorial regions becoming uninhabitatal. Would like some reason why your saying that one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

In order that the equitorial regions become uninhabitable, the rain-fall will have to drop to nearly zero. Considering the humidity in the region now, and the warmer oceans, one wonders if this could ever be the case. The population may drop, but can you really see Rio de Janiero or Sao Paulo with no people?

On the Andes side, the mountains should provide water on the windward slopes but the results of orographic heating on the leeward slopes will be serious. The Amazon basin may well become a grassland by the turn of the century.Brazil may very well become a cattle producer in competition with Argentina. [We seem to be a long way from the muddle east]

Returning to the land between the rivers, what do you suppose whould happen if (when) the Tigris and the Euphrates dry up?

[mightygoose 92]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

I disagree with equatorial regions becoming uninhabitatal. Would like some reason why your saying that one.quote>

Ok i will refer you to a couple of documents. i wont go into details here because this is not the thread to.

UN report on the implications of global warming in desert areas [linkie]

&

UN report on the implications of global warming in all dryland areas [linke]

Relevant Information

Drylands contain 43 per cent of the world’s cultivated lands. Between 10 and 20 per cent of drylands are already degraded. The total land area affected by desertification is estimated as between 6 and 12 million square kilometers. 90% of those living in dryland areas live in developing countries. Land degradation causes an estimated loss of US $42 billion a year from agricultural production.

Desertification is found to some degree on 30 per cent of irrigated lands, 47 per cent of rain-fed agricultural lands, and 73 per cent of rangelands. Annually, an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million hectares of irrigated land, 3.5 to 4 million hectares of rain-fed agricultural land, and about 35 million hectares of rangeland lose all or part of their productivity due to land degradation.

It can take 500 years for 2.5 cm of soil to form.

Population growth and inefficient water use are, by 2050, set to move some countries with deserts beyond thresholds of water stress, or even worse, water scarcity. Examples include Chad, Iraq, Niger and Syria. Renewable supplies of water which are fed to deserts by large rivers are also expected to be threatened, in some cases severely, by 2025. Examples include the Gariep River in southern Africa; the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers in North America; the Tigris and Euphrates in southwestern Asia and the Amu Darya and Indus Rivers in central Asia.

Overall temperature in deserts has increased by up to 2 degrees celsius from 1976 to 2000, well above the average global rise of 0.45 degrees celsius. Temperatures in deserts could rise by an average of 5 to 7 degrees celsius by the 2071-2100 period over the average in the 1961-1990 period.

In the past decade, rainfall has dropped 16 per cent in Iran's Dashti Kbir desert. At least 1 billion people must walk three hours or more to obtain drinking water. If present consumption patterns continue, two out of every three persons on Earth will live in water-stressed conditions by the year 2025. By 2050, per capita water supply is predicted to fall, leaving anywhere from 2 billion to 7 billion people with water scarcity.

If you add deforestation and aridification of the tropical equatorial zone (something im sure your all far more well versed in), combined with increased global temperature you will cause an increase in the size of the Hadley cell's, (the atmospheric system above deserts that primarily controls their precipitation) extending plus or minus 30 degrees latitude currently up to as much as plus or minus 40 degrees by 2075.

Now this water scarcity is not something that cannot be dealt with using current technology. The simple fact is that as 90% of the people facing this as an immediate problem are in developing nations, they will simply move to more extreme latitudes to avoid death, as governmental intervention will most certainly not be extensive enough.

As to the equatorial regions themselves that do not become entirely deforested, it is simply a matter of increased extreme weather activity, such as flooding and tropical storms,which over the last 100 years have increased in activity & frequency by nearly 40 fold in some areas. Flooding obviously causes degradation of arable land and direct property damage.

When environmental factors & financial firms make it impossible for real estate projects to get insurance in these areas, investors will look elsewhere. Only the developed nations within the tropics that have the infrastructure and capital to adequately defend their populace from this regular mass flooding will remain populated.

Maybe it was a mistake for me to use uninhabitable, perhaps largely uninhabited would be more the correct term.

Now please can we get back on topic.

It is worth noting that many of the aforementioned obstacles are currently effecting the nations under discussion here but as long as the oil is still flowing they can afford to buy grain from outside sources. While peak oil is expected in 2011 by all but the most optomistic predictions, middle eastern oil reserves will continue to produce at a slowed rate right through the 2020-2090 period.

Although they may still have oil to sell, it is estimated that global conventional oil production will be around 55Gb/d (gigabarrels a day) by 2030. At current esimates for consumption being 118Gb/d by this time, current dominant oil produces will have only a 47% market share. On top of this consumer confidence would have moved well over to the green side of things, reducing stock prices and forcing a stall on oil prices to compete with alternative energy(which by this point will be far more economically attractive).

As production costs continue toed to remain competce is being artificially capped to remain competitive, there will come a point where the wells have to be switched off. When this happens, Capital in the area will undergoe an explosive decompression, and with that the imported grain. People won't stick around long after that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: mightygoose

As production costs continue toed to remain competce is being artificially capped to remain competitive, there will come a point where the wells have to be switched off. When this happens, Capital in the area will undergoe an explosive decompression, and with that the imported grain. People won't stick around long after that.

quote>

I could follow your points perfectly until I hit this paragraph. Could you correct or reword it? I think you somehow missed a line.

[mightygoose 92]

As production costs continue to spiral upward and prices are artificially capped to remain competitive, there will come a point where the wells have to be switched off (standard cost-revenue). When this happens, Capital in the area will undergoe an explosive decompression, and with that the imported grain. People won't stick around long after that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Better, thanks.

I agree.

"This is the way the world ends

"Not with a bang but a whimper." Author Unknown by me